When I started the Challenge it was to keep me active more than anything, I mean how hard can it be to shoot an image a day and not conform to the standard rule of thirds? I'll say I was in for a rude awakening because even now when I look at something and think I'm nailing it I get back and see all kinds of connections I didn't see before. It's irritating in a way but the important thing is that it's forcing me to look for things I haven't before.

I'm sure it's human nature, but I'm pretty good at composing the shot, as long as I follow the rules, that I seem to have made My Rules. This Challenge has changed that and is forcing me to look at things twice, to really slow down, and dare I say See! I love learning new things, but this Challenge has been a challenge and to be honest I'm thankful for that! S-

As discussed many times, them "rules," all of them, ought'a be called suggestions or guidelines or something. I even tend to get mildly irritated (irrational I know but) when I see a demo of the Mild Suggestion of Thirds where the poster is careful to place his subject with great precision dead on one of the intersections. Huh? Yeeahhh, no. It's not a nut or a bolt. It ain't engineering; it's art. I look for balance. Visual balance. If I am placing a main subject on or near that intersection, I am also looking at the rest of the scene for visual mass to balance it. It's a kind of fulcrum, and the whole scene is a kind of teeter-totter; the thing should appear as if you were to let go of the frame it would stay there (does that make sense?). You offered your seashell in a vast sea of coral-colored background, placed far down in the right lower corner. I skipped it because Ernst already said what I would've, but I come back to it now because it's illustrative of what I feel is lack of balance. If I hold the frame and let go the thing will dip down on the right because that's where all the visual weight is. There is nothing to balance it in all that negative space. I think negative space can work wonderfully but (at least in my unlettered opinion --- they taught us nothing about art; we were on our own) there always needs to be balance in a composition. Paradoxically if you removed the shell and just offered a blank coral canvas it would balance. If I were to make it I might try placing the shell dead center, surrounded by negative space. That (I think) would balance. You could go further and crop to a square (I love square having shot Hasselblad and other square formats for years). I think what makes it not work is that lack of balance: the shell needs to find a fulcrum, so center it. You could even center it near the top of the frame; it would still balance but it would be something odd and quirky and art!

As discussed many times, them "rules," all of them, ought'a be called suggestions or guidelines or something. I even tend to get mildly irritated (irrational I know but) when I see a demo of the Mild Suggestion of Thirds where the poster is careful to place his subject with great precision dead on one of the intersections. Huh? Yeeahhh, no. It's not a nut or a bolt. It ain't engineering; it's art. I look for balance. Visual balance. If I am placing a main subject on or near that intersection, I am also looking at the rest of the scene for visual mass to balance it. It's a kind of fulcrum, and the whole scene is a kind of teeter-totter; the thing should appear as if you were to let go of the frame it would stay there (does that make sense?). You offered your seashell in a vast sea of coral-colored background, placed far down in the right lower corner. I skipped it because Ernst already said what I would've, but I come back to it now because it's illustrative of what I feel is lack of balance. If I hold the frame and let go the thing will dip down on the right because that's where all the visual weight is. There is nothing to balance it in all that negative space. I think negative space can work wonderfully but (at least in my unlettered opinion --- they taught us nothing about art; we were on our own) there always needs to be balance in a composition. Paradoxically if you removed the shell and just offered a blank coral canvas it would balance. If I were to make it I might try placing the shell dead center, surrounded by negative space. That (I think) would balance. You could go further and crop to a square (I love square having shot Hasselblad and other square formats for years). I think what makes it not work is that lack of balance: the shell needs to find a fulcrum, so center it. You could even center it near the top of the frame; it would still balance but it would be something odd and quirky and art!

You couldn't have said it better and I agree Visual Balance is more important than an arbitrary rule, the only thing I look for more is how to tell the story, how to say something you haven't heard before. I've been thinking about that shell too and think I forced it so I might try another soon enough looking for a way to tell a story with an image that's balanced.

The thing about this Challenge that's been so great is having people give their honest feedback. I like hearing Like but I only grow when people take their time to tell me what they really think, and maybe more importantly why. The Challenge is a unique place, it's made me a crazy person at times, and it's helped me start to learn to unsee, but mostly it's been a place to try everything and anything and see what people think. This is what has helped me the most and has forced me to grow!

Thank you so much for your feedback, it's honest and it helps! Never Stop! S-

About photoMentoris

The founding principles of photoMENTORIS is to have a place where professional and enthusiast photographers could come and meet in order to teach, share and learn from each other. It is our goal to foster this principle in an atmosphere that encourages creativity and exploration and promotes the advancement of our art through peer mentoring and supportive critique, while having fun along the way.